Fort Hood officials say no decision has been made to seek a death sentence in MAJ Hasan’s case [expanded]
KXXV reports here that “Fort Hood officials say there has been no decision to pursue the death penalty of Maj. Nidal Hasan, despite recent reports.” We previously noted one such report here. (We also noted that report was highly inaccurate in other respects.)
Phil Cave’s Court-Martial Trial Practice blog provides this link to the text of a press release Fort Hood issued emphasizing that no decision on whether to refer the Hasan case capitally has yet been made.
Yeah, maybe they’ll send it to NJP.
I have no doubt that the defense bar will take the following positions: First, we should get him a mitigation expert to see if we can explain his behavior. Second, he is himself a victim of his circumstances which made his unfortunate acts involuntary. Third, he is victim of the system that is now going to try to murder him over his religon.
“Third, he is victim of the system that is now going to try to murder him over his religon.”
That defense should go over well with the members.
Isn’t this just a question of semantics?
True, the convening authority hasn’t made a capital referral, and no doubt will keep his options open until receiving the IO’s report and advice from his SJA. But the document linked to in the earlier post on this topic would not exist if the prosecution did not plan to pursue the death penalty.
I suppose that it all depends on (to borrow a phrase) what your definition of “seek” is.
1st one is self-evident and obvious. Can’t read tone so can’t tell if you think that wrong or not.
2nd one is probably linked to the 1st one in that if he has a mental disease or defect then he would be characterized as a victim of his own mental illness. Again, seems pretty obvious that is what any decent defense attorney would do.
3rd seems unlikely unless defense counsel have lost their mind. That defense may work in other cases but it wouldn’t come close to working in this one given he was given free medical training, was an officer, and thus no indications that the man was trying to hold him down.
Or maybe what your definition of “decision” is. Either way, this is “news” in only the most farcical sense.
Nah. Lets go Sans mitigation expert, not argue anything, and see what happens on appeal.
We on the defense bar need to spend some time reflecting, because we are usually on the wrong side of justice, making a game of it.
Anonymous…I do believe “defense strategist” was using sarcasm.
The Defense bar is NEVER on the wrong side of justice for doing its job ethically, competently, aggressively.
The greater danger in making a game of things lies on the part of the prosecution.